Why "freedom of religion" is an inane and outdated concept

[WinterBorn]

Removing freedom of choice, free will, is not a religious concept.

I digress, our Common Law, for example, prohibits atheistic practices such as rape, murder, pedophilia, and otherwise.

It therefore effectively prohibits the practice of atheism already and establishes "theocracy" on atheists, who would otherwise rape, murder, molest children without remorse much like the Marquis de Sade - so I see there's no reason why we shouldn't outright ban atheism in every civilized nation, rather than essentially ban it in everything but name by banning its "rites" such as murder and those mentioned.

If the nations of Europe, for example, ban the display of the Nazi flag, then I see no reason why banning the display of atheism or secularism in public places would be any different. Why should so-called "people" who really have no problem with rape, sodomy, and every other bestial pleasure conceived be given any "rights", when they have more in common with feral animals and mongrels than "people" to begin with.

Your claim that rape, murder, pedophilia and the like are crimes only committed by atheists is laughable.

 

[Unification]

I'd argue that the irreligious have proven themselves too devolved and degenerate to properly govern themselves without the guidance of, contrary to their deluded notions of "independence". Being given over less-evolved vices such as gluttony, sexual deviancy, porn addiction, and what not - the types of simplistic pleasures befitting of lesser evolved species they have more in common with than enlightened humans who are capable of creating and appreciating higher things such as arts, music, sciences, and spirituality - all which, of course are religious constructs and institutions.

Therefore it would be in the best interest of America and Europe's governments to administer religion to them and re-establish state religion in our schools, universities and media. America's "first Amendment" is something of an outdated holdover of a past area and can easily be amended or subverted; while America's founders were wise in many areas, they were foolish in others, such as in their decision to permit enslavement of Africans - I'd argue that their decision to grant freedom of religion, rather than establishing state religion was one of their foolies, and something which secularists have of course proven themselves incapable of handling responsibly.

As for how to implement this - the details vary. I'd argue that even giving secularists or atheists "human rights" at all is a luxury, but wouldn't see the need or effectiveness in actively arresting and imprisoning them for holding secular beliefs in the privacy of their own how. But ideally, publicly identifying as a "secularist" or "atheist" should be made socially acceptable in any civilized nation on par with publicly identifying as a pedophile, rapist, or Nazi, or otherwise, and this way they could passively be encouraged either to convert to religion or keep their deviant beliefs outside of civilized society.

No. Absolutely not. If you want to follow a religious belief, feel free to do so. But our gov't will NOT have a state religion. That is a blatant violation of the US Constitution.

AS for atheists being devolved, you are wrong. Most atheists are decent, moral, upstanding citizens. And they are that way without threats of eternal pain & suffering from mythological beings.

You have only to look at history to see what happens when religions gain absolute political power. Or look at the Middleeast. That is a prime example.

No, my argument is that the state is allowed to established "religion", so long as they do not preference one major religion over the other.

But the state can, and arguably should preference any religion over atheism.

And no, I believe that threat of divine wrath is the only thing that would keep many materialistic-minded people from raping or killing - unless a person embraces a higher power out of their own free will, then they can not be above this - if they deny higher power and embrace materialism, then punishment is the only way to speak to them, much as one can't reason with a spoiled child which cares only for its own simple pleasures.

 

[Unification]

Removing freedom of choice, free will, is not a religious concept.

I digress, our Common Law, for example, prohibits atheistic practices such as rape, murder, pedophilia, and otherwise.

It therefore effectively prohibits the practice of atheism already and establishes "theocracy" on atheists, who would otherwise rape, murder, molest children without remorse much like the Marquis de Sade - so I see there's no reason why we shouldn't outright ban atheism in every civilized nation, rather than essentially ban it in everything but name by banning its "rites" such as murder and those mentioned.

If the nations of Europe, for example, ban the display of the Nazi flag, then I see no reason why banning the display of atheism or secularism in public places would be any different. Why should so-called "people" who really have no problem with rape, sodomy, and every other bestial pleasure conceived be given any "rights", when they have more in common with feral animals and mongrels than "people" to begin with.

Your claim that rape, murder, pedophilia and the like are crimes only committed by atheists is laughable.

If a 'religious' person do this, they are acting in an atheistic fashion is my argument.

Acts such as rape and killing are acts practiced by other animals such as chimpanzee, in which males often rape females, or murder the offspring sired by other males.

If an atheist embraces materialism and views himself as identical to other creatures, then there is no reason logically he should avoid rape or killing if it is in his own self-interest, or do anything which a less evolved creature might do.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Sure, religious people might be happier, but they might not.
Can you prove it, or disprove it?

So, you can't find happiness as an Agnostic, or Atheist in a sunny day in the woods, watching Sports, or fishing out on the lake, or socializing in your local bar, or tavern?

Anyways, even if you were more happy, does that necessarily prove, or disprove that you're less likely to be criminal?

Men tend to be happier than Women, but they also commit more crime, and even successful suicide.

Gee, wiz.

 

[WinterBorn]

I'd argue that the irreligious have proven themselves too devolved and degenerate to properly govern themselves without the guidance of, contrary to their deluded notions of "independence". Being given over less-evolved vices such as gluttony, sexual deviancy, porn addiction, and what not - the types of simplistic pleasures befitting of lesser evolved species they have more in common with than enlightened humans who are capable of creating and appreciating higher things such as arts, music, sciences, and spirituality - all which, of course are religious constructs and institutions.

Therefore it would be in the best interest of America and Europe's governments to administer religion to them and re-establish state religion in our schools, universities and media. America's "first Amendment" is something of an outdated holdover of a past area and can easily be amended or subverted; while America's founders were wise in many areas, they were foolish in others, such as in their decision to permit enslavement of Africans - I'd argue that their decision to grant freedom of religion, rather than establishing state religion was one of their foolies, and something which secularists have of course proven themselves incapable of handling responsibly.

As for how to implement this - the details vary. I'd argue that even giving secularists or atheists "human rights" at all is a luxury, but wouldn't see the need or effectiveness in actively arresting and imprisoning them for holding secular beliefs in the privacy of their own how. But ideally, publicly identifying as a "secularist" or "atheist" should be made socially acceptable in any civilized nation on par with publicly identifying as a pedophile, rapist, or Nazi, or otherwise, and this way they could passively be encouraged either to convert to religion or keep their deviant beliefs outside of civilized society.

No. Absolutely not. If you want to follow a religious belief, feel free to do so. But our gov't will NOT have a state religion. That is a blatant violation of the US Constitution.

AS for atheists being devolved, you are wrong. Most atheists are decent, moral, upstanding citizens. And they are that way without threats of eternal pain & suffering from mythological beings.

You have only to look at history to see what happens when religions gain absolute political power. Or look at the Middleeast. That is a prime example.

No, my argument is that the state is allowed to established "religion", so long as they do not preference one major religion over the other.

But the state can, and arguably should preference any religion over atheism.

And no, I believe that threat of divine wrath is the only thing that would keep many materialistic-minded people from raping or killing - unless a person embraces a higher power out of their own free will, then they can not be above this - if they deny higher power and embrace materialism, then punishment is the only way to speak to them, much as one can't reason with a spoiled child which cares only for its own simple pleasures.

So you think the threat of divine wrath is all that prevents people from raping and killing???

 

[WinterBorn]

Removing freedom of choice, free will, is not a religious concept.

I digress, our Common Law, for example, prohibits atheistic practices such as rape, murder, pedophilia, and otherwise.

It therefore effectively prohibits the practice of atheism already and establishes "theocracy" on atheists, who would otherwise rape, murder, molest children without remorse much like the Marquis de Sade - so I see there's no reason why we shouldn't outright ban atheism in every civilized nation, rather than essentially ban it in everything but name by banning its "rites" such as murder and those mentioned.

If the nations of Europe, for example, ban the display of the Nazi flag, then I see no reason why banning the display of atheism or secularism in public places would be any different. Why should so-called "people" who really have no problem with rape, sodomy, and every other bestial pleasure conceived be given any "rights", when they have more in common with feral animals and mongrels than "people" to begin with.

Your claim that rape, murder, pedophilia and the like are crimes only committed by atheists is laughable.

If a 'religious' person do this, they are acting in an atheistic fashion is my argument.

Acts such as rape and killing are acts practiced by other animals such as chimpanzee, in which males often rape females, or murder the offspring sired by other males.

If an atheist embraces materialism and views himself as identical to other creatures, then there is no reason logically he should avoid rape or killing if it is in his own self-interest, or do anything which a less evolved creature might do.

So an atheist is, in your mind, incapable of any compassion or empathy?

 

[bodecea]

try not to share your ideas with the neighbors

I'm not particularily concerned with that, my argument is that our politicians and executives should work to establish state religion, given that democracy has proven itself a failed experiment, which the lesser members of society have proven themselves incapable of managing.

Allowing secularism is therefore the equivalent of allowing mob rule, or giving chimpanzees the illusion that they can govern themselves without aid of their rulers.

Good luck with that..... Not gonna join your so-called religion.

 

[boedicca]

I smell Noob Troll. Best not to feed it.

 

[WinterBorn]

I smell Noob Troll. Best not to feed it.

YOu are probably right.

 

[Unification]

I'd argue that the irreligious have proven themselves too devolved and degenerate to properly govern themselves without the guidance of, contrary to their deluded notions of "independence". Being given over less-evolved vices such as gluttony, sexual deviancy, porn addiction, and what not - the types of simplistic pleasures befitting of lesser evolved species they have more in common with than enlightened humans who are capable of creating and appreciating higher things such as arts, music, sciences, and spirituality - all which, of course are religious constructs and institutions.

Therefore it would be in the best interest of America and Europe's governments to administer religion to them and re-establish state religion in our schools, universities and media. America's "first Amendment" is something of an outdated holdover of a past area and can easily be amended or subverted; while America's founders were wise in many areas, they were foolish in others, such as in their decision to permit enslavement of Africans - I'd argue that their decision to grant freedom of religion, rather than establishing state religion was one of their foolies, and something which secularists have of course proven themselves incapable of handling responsibly.

As for how to implement this - the details vary. I'd argue that even giving secularists or atheists "human rights" at all is a luxury, but wouldn't see the need or effectiveness in actively arresting and imprisoning them for holding secular beliefs in the privacy of their own how. But ideally, publicly identifying as a "secularist" or "atheist" should be made socially acceptable in any civilized nation on par with publicly identifying as a pedophile, rapist, or Nazi, or otherwise, and this way they could passively be encouraged either to convert to religion or keep their deviant beliefs outside of civilized society.

No. Absolutely not. If you want to follow a religious belief, feel free to do so. But our gov't will NOT have a state religion. That is a blatant violation of the US Constitution.

AS for atheists being devolved, you are wrong. Most atheists are decent, moral, upstanding citizens. And they are that way without threats of eternal pain & suffering from mythological beings.

You have only to look at history to see what happens when religions gain absolute political power. Or look at the Middleeast. That is a prime example.

No, my argument is that the state is allowed to established "religion", so long as they do not preference one major religion over the other.

But the state can, and arguably should preference any religion over atheism.

And no, I believe that threat of divine wrath is the only thing that would keep many materialistic-minded people from raping or killing - unless a person embraces a higher power out of their own free will, then they can not be above this - if they deny higher power and embrace materialism, then punishment is the only way to speak to them, much as one can't reason with a spoiled child which cares only for its own simple pleasures.

So you think the threat of divine wrath is all that prevents people from raping and killing???

My argument

I'd argue that the irreligious have proven themselves too devolved and degenerate to properly govern themselves without the guidance of, contrary to their deluded notions of "independence". Being given over less-evolved vices such as gluttony, sexual deviancy, porn addiction, and what not - the types of simplistic pleasures befitting of lesser evolved species they have more in common with than enlightened humans who are capable of creating and appreciating higher things such as arts, music, sciences, and spirituality - all which, of course are religious constructs and institutions.

Therefore it would be in the best interest of America and Europe's governments to administer religion to them and re-establish state religion in our schools, universities and media. America's "first Amendment" is something of an outdated holdover of a past area and can easily be amended or subverted; while America's founders were wise in many areas, they were foolish in others, such as in their decision to permit enslavement of Africans - I'd argue that their decision to grant freedom of religion, rather than establishing state religion was one of their foolies, and something which secularists have of course proven themselves incapable of handling responsibly.

As for how to implement this - the details vary. I'd argue that even giving secularists or atheists "human rights" at all is a luxury, but wouldn't see the need or effectiveness in actively arresting and imprisoning them for holding secular beliefs in the privacy of their own how. But ideally, publicly identifying as a "secularist" or "atheist" should be made socially acceptable in any civilized nation on par with publicly identifying as a pedophile, rapist, or Nazi, or otherwise, and this way they could passively be encouraged either to convert to religion or keep their deviant beliefs outside of civilized society.

No. Absolutely not. If you want to follow a religious belief, feel free to do so. But our gov't will NOT have a state religion. That is a blatant violation of the US Constitution.

AS for atheists being devolved, you are wrong. Most atheists are decent, moral, upstanding citizens. And they are that way without threats of eternal pain & suffering from mythological beings.

You have only to look at history to see what happens when religions gain absolute political power. Or look at the Middleeast. That is a prime example.

No, my argument is that the state is allowed to established "religion", so long as they do not preference one major religion over the other.

But the state can, and arguably should preference any religion over atheism.

And no, I believe that threat of divine wrath is the only thing that would keep many materialistic-minded people from raping or killing - unless a person embraces a higher power out of their own free will, then they can not be above this - if they deny higher power and embrace materialism, then punishment is the only way to speak to them, much as one can't reason with a spoiled child which cares only for its own simple pleasures.

So you think the threat of divine wrath is all that prevents people from raping and killing???

In some people, but I argue that since most do not, this is evidence of many being "closet theist", or else they would have far less inhibition, much as how I doubt that a chimpanzee thinks about higher concepts such as "fate" or "karma for actions" before it kills another member of its kind.

 

[WinterBorn]

I'd argue that the irreligious have proven themselves too devolved and degenerate to properly govern themselves without the guidance of, contrary to their deluded notions of "independence". Being given over less-evolved vices such as gluttony, sexual deviancy, porn addiction, and what not - the types of simplistic pleasures befitting of lesser evolved species they have more in common with than enlightened humans who are capable of creating and appreciating higher things such as arts, music, sciences, and spirituality - all which, of course are religious constructs and institutions.

Therefore it would be in the best interest of America and Europe's governments to administer religion to them and re-establish state religion in our schools, universities and media. America's "first Amendment" is something of an outdated holdover of a past area and can easily be amended or subverted; while America's founders were wise in many areas, they were foolish in others, such as in their decision to permit enslavement of Africans - I'd argue that their decision to grant freedom of religion, rather than establishing state religion was one of their foolies, and something which secularists have of course proven themselves incapable of handling responsibly.

As for how to implement this - the details vary. I'd argue that even giving secularists or atheists "human rights" at all is a luxury, but wouldn't see the need or effectiveness in actively arresting and imprisoning them for holding secular beliefs in the privacy of their own how. But ideally, publicly identifying as a "secularist" or "atheist" should be made socially acceptable in any civilized nation on par with publicly identifying as a pedophile, rapist, or Nazi, or otherwise, and this way they could passively be encouraged either to convert to religion or keep their deviant beliefs outside of civilized society.

No. Absolutely not. If you want to follow a religious belief, feel free to do so. But our gov't will NOT have a state religion. That is a blatant violation of the US Constitution.

AS for atheists being devolved, you are wrong. Most atheists are decent, moral, upstanding citizens. And they are that way without threats of eternal pain & suffering from mythological beings.

You have only to look at history to see what happens when religions gain absolute political power. Or look at the Middleeast. That is a prime example.

No, my argument is that the state is allowed to established "religion", so long as they do not preference one major religion over the other.

But the state can, and arguably should preference any religion over atheism.

And no, I believe that threat of divine wrath is the only thing that would keep many materialistic-minded people from raping or killing - unless a person embraces a higher power out of their own free will, then they can not be above this - if they deny higher power and embrace materialism, then punishment is the only way to speak to them, much as one can't reason with a spoiled child which cares only for its own simple pleasures.

So you think the threat of divine wrath is all that prevents people from raping and killing???

My argument

I'd argue that the irreligious have proven themselves too devolved and degenerate to properly govern themselves without the guidance of, contrary to their deluded notions of "independence". Being given over less-evolved vices such as gluttony, sexual deviancy, porn addiction, and what not - the types of simplistic pleasures befitting of lesser evolved species they have more in common with than enlightened humans who are capable of creating and appreciating higher things such as arts, music, sciences, and spirituality - all which, of course are religious constructs and institutions.

Therefore it would be in the best interest of America and Europe's governments to administer religion to them and re-establish state religion in our schools, universities and media. America's "first Amendment" is something of an outdated holdover of a past area and can easily be amended or subverted; while America's founders were wise in many areas, they were foolish in others, such as in their decision to permit enslavement of Africans - I'd argue that their decision to grant freedom of religion, rather than establishing state religion was one of their foolies, and something which secularists have of course proven themselves incapable of handling responsibly.

As for how to implement this - the details vary. I'd argue that even giving secularists or atheists "human rights" at all is a luxury, but wouldn't see the need or effectiveness in actively arresting and imprisoning them for holding secular beliefs in the privacy of their own how. But ideally, publicly identifying as a "secularist" or "atheist" should be made socially acceptable in any civilized nation on par with publicly identifying as a pedophile, rapist, or Nazi, or otherwise, and this way they could passively be encouraged either to convert to religion or keep their deviant beliefs outside of civilized society.

No. Absolutely not. If you want to follow a religious belief, feel free to do so. But our gov't will NOT have a state religion. That is a blatant violation of the US Constitution.

AS for atheists being devolved, you are wrong. Most atheists are decent, moral, upstanding citizens. And they are that way without threats of eternal pain & suffering from mythological beings.

You have only to look at history to see what happens when religions gain absolute political power. Or look at the Middleeast. That is a prime example.

No, my argument is that the state is allowed to established "religion", so long as they do not preference one major religion over the other.

But the state can, and arguably should preference any religion over atheism.

And no, I believe that threat of divine wrath is the only thing that would keep many materialistic-minded people from raping or killing - unless a person embraces a higher power out of their own free will, then they can not be above this - if they deny higher power and embrace materialism, then punishment is the only way to speak to them, much as one can't reason with a spoiled child which cares only for its own simple pleasures.

So you think the threat of divine wrath is all that prevents people from raping and killing???

In some people, but I argue that since most do not, this is evidence of many being "closet theist", or else they would have far less inhibition, much as how I doubt that a chimpanzee thinks about higher concepts such as "fate" or "karma for actions" before it kills another member of its kind.

I have never known a violent atheist. I have known many violent people of various other religions. I have also read enough history to know that theocratic gov'ts have been among the most violent, aggressive and oppressive gov'ts of all. If you claim everything you do is "God's Will", you have very few limits on what you can force the people to do.

 

[boedicca]

I'd argue that the irreligious have proven themselves too devolved and degenerate to properly govern themselves without the guidance of, contrary to their deluded notions of "independence". Being given over less-evolved vices such as gluttony, sexual deviancy, porn addiction, and what not - the types of simplistic pleasures befitting of lesser evolved species they have more in common with than enlightened humans who are capable of creating and appreciating higher things such as arts, music, sciences, and spirituality - all which, of course are religious constructs and institutions.

Therefore it would be in the best interest of America and Europe's governments to administer religion to them and re-establish state religion in our schools, universities and media. America's "first Amendment" is something of an outdated holdover of a past area and can easily be amended or subverted; while America's founders were wise in many areas, they were foolish in others, such as in their decision to permit enslavement of Africans - I'd argue that their decision to grant freedom of religion, rather than establishing state religion was one of their foolies, and something which secularists have of course proven themselves incapable of handling responsibly.

As for how to implement this - the details vary. I'd argue that even giving secularists or atheists "human rights" at all is a luxury, but wouldn't see the need or effectiveness in actively arresting and imprisoning them for holding secular beliefs in the privacy of their own how. But ideally, publicly identifying as a "secularist" or "atheist" should be made socially acceptable in any civilized nation on par with publicly identifying as a pedophile, rapist, or Nazi, or otherwise, and this way they could passively be encouraged either to convert to religion or keep their deviant beliefs outside of civilized society.

No. Absolutely not. If you want to follow a religious belief, feel free to do so. But our gov't will NOT have a state religion. That is a blatant violation of the US Constitution.

AS for atheists being devolved, you are wrong. Most atheists are decent, moral, upstanding citizens. And they are that way without threats of eternal pain & suffering from mythological beings.

You have only to look at history to see what happens when religions gain absolute political power. Or look at the Middleeast. That is a prime example.

No, my argument is that the state is allowed to established "religion", so long as they do not preference one major religion over the other.

But the state can, and arguably should preference any religion over atheism.

And no, I believe that threat of divine wrath is the only thing that would keep many materialistic-minded people from raping or killing - unless a person embraces a higher power out of their own free will, then they can not be above this - if they deny higher power and embrace materialism, then punishment is the only way to speak to them, much as one can't reason with a spoiled child which cares only for its own simple pleasures.

So you think the threat of divine wrath is all that prevents people from raping and killing???

My argument

I'd argue that the irreligious have proven themselves too devolved and degenerate to properly govern themselves without the guidance of, contrary to their deluded notions of "independence". Being given over less-evolved vices such as gluttony, sexual deviancy, porn addiction, and what not - the types of simplistic pleasures befitting of lesser evolved species they have more in common with than enlightened humans who are capable of creating and appreciating higher things such as arts, music, sciences, and spirituality - all which, of course are religious constructs and institutions.

Therefore it would be in the best interest of America and Europe's governments to administer religion to them and re-establish state religion in our schools, universities and media. America's "first Amendment" is something of an outdated holdover of a past area and can easily be amended or subverted; while America's founders were wise in many areas, they were foolish in others, such as in their decision to permit enslavement of Africans - I'd argue that their decision to grant freedom of religion, rather than establishing state religion was one of their foolies, and something which secularists have of course proven themselves incapable of handling responsibly.

As for how to implement this - the details vary. I'd argue that even giving secularists or atheists "human rights" at all is a luxury, but wouldn't see the need or effectiveness in actively arresting and imprisoning them for holding secular beliefs in the privacy of their own how. But ideally, publicly identifying as a "secularist" or "atheist" should be made socially acceptable in any civilized nation on par with publicly identifying as a pedophile, rapist, or Nazi, or otherwise, and this way they could passively be encouraged either to convert to religion or keep their deviant beliefs outside of civilized society.

No. Absolutely not. If you want to follow a religious belief, feel free to do so. But our gov't will NOT have a state religion. That is a blatant violation of the US Constitution.

AS for atheists being devolved, you are wrong. Most atheists are decent, moral, upstanding citizens. And they are that way without threats of eternal pain & suffering from mythological beings.

You have only to look at history to see what happens when religions gain absolute political power. Or look at the Middleeast. That is a prime example.

No, my argument is that the state is allowed to established "religion", so long as they do not preference one major religion over the other.

But the state can, and arguably should preference any religion over atheism.

And no, I believe that threat of divine wrath is the only thing that would keep many materialistic-minded people from raping or killing - unless a person embraces a higher power out of their own free will, then they can not be above this - if they deny higher power and embrace materialism, then punishment is the only way to speak to them, much as one can't reason with a spoiled child which cares only for its own simple pleasures.

So you think the threat of divine wrath is all that prevents people from raping and killing???

In some people, but I argue that since most do not, this is evidence of many being "closet theist", or else they would have far less inhibition, much as how I doubt that a chimpanzee thinks about higher concepts such as "fate" or "karma for actions" before it kills another member of its kind.

I have never known a violent atheist. I have known many violent people of various other religions. I have also read enough history to know that theocratic gov'ts have been among the most violent, aggressive and oppressive gov'ts of all. If you claim everything you do is "God's Will", you have very few limits on what you can force the people to do.

If you've never known a violent atheist, then you have never visited the SF-Berkeley-Oakland Triangle, Portland or Seattle.

Just sayin'.

 

[WinterBorn]

Removing freedom of choice, free will, is not a religious concept.

I digress, our Common Law, for example, prohibits atheistic practices such as rape, murder, pedophilia, and otherwise.

It therefore effectively prohibits the practice of atheism already and establishes "theocracy" on atheists, who would otherwise rape, murder, molest children without remorse much like the Marquis de Sade - so I see there's no reason why we shouldn't outright ban atheism in every civilized nation, rather than essentially ban it in everything but name by banning its "rites" such as murder and those mentioned.

If the nations of Europe, for example, ban the display of the Nazi flag, then I see no reason why banning the display of atheism or secularism in public places would be any different. Why should so-called "people" who really have no problem with rape, sodomy, and every other bestial pleasure conceived be given any "rights", when they have more in common with feral animals and mongrels than "people" to begin with.

I am amused that you use the Marquis de Sade as an example of an atheist. He is certainly not anything like the average atheist.

 

[hjmick]

This idiotic filth should be relegated to the Rubber Room.

...giving secularists or atheists "human rights" at all is a luxury... But ideally, publicly identifying as a "secularist" or "atheist" should be made socially acceptable

You mean kind of like this:

...and this way they could passively be encouraged either to convert to religion or keep their deviant beliefs outside of civilized society.

So, in your twisted reality, not believing in a GOD is deviant? You need psychiatric help.

"people" who really have no problem with rape, sodomy, and every other bestial pleasure conceived be given any "rights", when they have more in common with feral animals and mongrels than "people" to begin with.

What, in your little pea sized brain, make you think they have no problem with these things?

Constitutional rights should exist only for the religious - I would stop at establishing a "single" religion, but I would argue that only those who acknowledge one God or higher power are deserving of rights, those who don't do not deserve those rights

You are, seriously, a sick and twisted human being.

 

[Unification]

This idiotic filth should be relegated to the Rubber Room.

...giving secularists or atheists "human rights" at all is a luxury... But ideally, publicly identifying as a "secularist" or "atheist" should be made socially acceptable

Yes, I consider human rights a religious construct, and that if a person renounces spirituality and embraces materialism as a lifestyle, they're effectively renouncing their humanity in the process.

...and this way they could passively be encouraged either to convert to religion or keep their deviant beliefs outside of civilized society.

So, in your twisted reality, not believing in a GOD is deviant? You need psychiatric help.

Not believing in One God or higher power is deviant, yes, since it's one thing which separates humans from lesser creatures. I believe this can be proven factually.

I would not favor the absurd analogies mentioned here such as "public stonings", but I believe an ideal government would openly favor religion over materialism or secularism - not necessarily establishing one single religion, but favoring any over none, I suppose.

You are, seriously, a sick and twisted human being.

 

[Unification]

You are, seriously, a sick and twisted human being.

Fail... my argument is clearly that if a person has no concept of a God or Higher Power than themselves, then they can't logically have a problem with those things if they feel it benefits them, they could only logically conclude that "might is right", much like any animal, and therefore effectively renounce their "humanism".

So I don't see how human rights are compatible with atheism myself, atheism is essentially "law of the jungle".

 

[WinterBorn]

You are, seriously, a sick and twisted human being.

Fail... my argument is clearly that if a person has no concept of a God or Higher Power than themselves, then they can't logically have a problem with those things if they feel it benefits them, they could only logically conclude that "might is right", much like any animal, and therefore effectively renounce their "humanism".

So I don't see how human rights are compatible with atheism myself, atheism is essentially "law of the jungle".

And that is absolute bullshit. People can have compassion for their fellow man, empathy with other humans without any God. They can want what is best for others and help others without the threat of eternal damnation.

If you cannot empathize with others or feel compassion for your fellow man without being told to do so by someone claiming to represent God, there is something wrong with you.

And your attempts to claim that atheists are the ones committing the rapes and murders is laughable. How many young people have been molested by clergy? Representatives of the very religions you think will save us have ruined more young lives than atheism has ever thought of.

 

[hjmick]

You are, seriously, a sick and twisted human being.

Fail... my argument is clearly that if a person has no concept of a God or Higher Power than themselves, then they can't logically have a problem with those things if they feel it benefits them, they could only logically conclude that "might is right", much like any animal, and therefore effectively renounce their "humanism".

So I don't see how human rights are compatible with atheism myself, atheism is essentially "law of the jungle".

And that is absolute bullshit. People can have compassion for their fellow man, empathy with other humans without any God. They can want what is best for others and help others without the threat of eternal damnation.

If you cannot empathize with others or feel compassion for your fellow man without being told to do so by someone claiming to represent God, there is something wrong with you.

And your attempts to claim that atheists are the ones committing the rapes and murders is laughable. How many young people have been molested by clergy? Representatives of the very religions you think will save us have ruined more young lives than atheism has ever thought of.

I would argue that it is far more moral to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing, rather than doing the right thing for fear of what may or may not happen to you after you die.

 

[Unification]

If rightness is

You are, seriously, a sick and twisted human being.

Fail... my argument is clearly that if a person has no concept of a God or Higher Power than themselves, then they can't logically have a problem with those things if they feel it benefits them, they could only logically conclude that "might is right", much like any animal, and therefore effectively renounce their "humanism".

So I don't see how human rights are compatible with atheism myself, atheism is essentially "law of the jungle".

And that is absolute bullshit. People can have compassion for their fellow man, empathy with other humans without any God. They can want what is best for others and help others without the threat of eternal damnation.

If you cannot empathize with others or feel compassion for your fellow man without being told to do so by someone claiming to represent God, there is something wrong with you.

And your attempts to claim that atheists are the ones committing the rapes and murders is laughable. How many young people have been molested by clergy? Representatives of the very religions you think will save us have ruined more young lives than atheism has ever thought of.

And what is motive behind molestation?

Obviously the motive is physical, sensory gratification at expense of children, like that of an animal.

So the motive is clearly one of selfish and unrestrained materialism, whether dressed up in a "religious" veneer or not.

 

[Unification]

You are, seriously, a sick and twisted human being.

Fail... my argument is clearly that if a person has no concept of a God or Higher Power than themselves, then they can't logically have a problem with those things if they feel it benefits them, they could only logically conclude that "might is right", much like any animal, and therefore effectively renounce their "humanism".

So I don't see how human rights are compatible with atheism myself, atheism is essentially "law of the jungle".

And that is absolute bullshit. People can have compassion for their fellow man, empathy with other humans without any God. They can want what is best for others and help others without the threat of eternal damnation.

If you cannot empathize with others or feel compassion for your fellow man without being told to do so by someone claiming to represent God, there is something wrong with you.

And your attempts to claim that atheists are the ones committing the rapes and murders is laughable. How many young people have been molested by clergy? Representatives of the very religions you think will save us have ruined more young lives than atheism has ever thought of.

I would argue that it is far more moral to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing, rather than doing the right thing for fear of what may or may not happen to you after you die.

If you deny a higher power then "rightness" can not mean anything fixed, it would be decided by individuals, or societies, not anything meaningful in and of itself.